On 03/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> That's a site that was blocked after sliding
all the way down the
> "slippery slope", in the best of faith.
A "slide" that lasted all of couple of
hours, and was quickly
reversed. Hardly a crisis.
The problem is that it was in the best of faith, and was nevertheless
stupid and damaging.
> BADSITES is an odious, stupid and damaging
policy. Please stop pushing it.
This isn't about the BADSITES policy, this is
about the MONGO case.
This is about the policy bearing an unmistakable resemblance to
BADSITES, where editors are *actually being blocked* for edits which
the arbitrator who wrote the original wording in the case says aren't
covered by it.
How is this not a problem? How is arbitrary blocking under guise of a
woefully misinterpreted arbitration decision not a problem?